Peace, Joy, Pancakeshttp://michellearnold.org
"It can't be all peace, joy, and pancakes" (Msgr. Georg Ratzinger).Tue, 17 Feb 2015 00:49:14 +0000enhourly1http://wordpress.com/http://1.gravatar.com/blavatar/d9a5bd65de4b79ef0a17ab3dd6905053?s=96&d=http%3A%2F%2Fs2.wp.com%2Fi%2Fbuttonw-com.pngPeace, Joy, Pancakeshttp://michellearnold.org
The Line at the Gateshttp://michellearnold.org/2014/07/28/the-line-at-the-gates/
http://michellearnold.org/2014/07/28/the-line-at-the-gates/#commentsTue, 29 Jul 2014 05:27:38 +0000http://michellearnold.org/?p=300Continue reading →]]>I opened my eyes to a line. A line that snaked back and forth, seemingly endlessly. Longer than the ones for Space Mountain or LAX, certainly. But it was moving well, so I relaxed and decided to make friends with the people around me. After all, we were going to be together for a long time.

“What brings you?” I asked a man in early middle-age. He didn’t look the part of someone who would be here.

He shrugged. “Just one of those things. You go to sleep one night and you wake up here.”

Yeah, I knew how that was. I turned to an older woman on my other side. “And you?”

“Oh, I was ready. Prepared all my life, you could say,” she said with a laugh.

My own reason for being here was not much different from either of theirs. It was sudden, but I was ready to be here. I’d gone to Mass every Sunday, confession once a month. And now all three of us were awaiting our turn to be processed into eternity.

I took a look at the line around us. There were a lot of old people, some middle-aged. I was surprised that there were only a few young people and no small children. Of course, who knew what the line had looked like before I entered into it? That the line was filled with those who had lived their lives already was to be expected, I guessed.

Over the loudspeaker

Suddenly, a speaker hidden somewhere overhead snapped on. “Is there anyone here willing to give up their place in line for some new arrivals? If so, please raise your hand and an attendant will show you the exit.”

Huh? Give up my place in line? Was this some kind of trick? I glanced around. A number of people held up their hands, waving frantically. Some of them were covered in blood, as if their last moments were as sudden as mine but they had not been prepared. There were other volunteers, some raising their hands hesitantly. Attendants seemed to appear from nowhere, guiding each and every one of them to exits. As they left, new arrivals took their places.

I glanced at my new friends. The woman looked vaguely uncomfortable, but resolute. The man again shrugged. “Maybe St. Peter has ways of cutting down his workload,” the man suggested with a smile. “If you don’t care about your place in line, then I guess you don’t belong here.”

How late is too late?

Nearby a young woman sobbed quietly. I thought about asking her about her story, but decided it wasn’t worth the effort. We’d all be here forever; I’d learn her story soon enough, I imagined. Probably without any prodding on my part.

Before I could think more about it, an elderly man approached her. “You look like my granddaughter,” he said. “I wasn’t very kind to her when she told me she was homosexual, and I’d like to make up for that before I face St. Peter. Are you all right, sweetheart?”

Before either could say more, attendants materialized next to them and said sternly, “Come with us, both of you. You don’t belong here.” The young woman’s sobbing increased, but the elderly man grabbed her hand. “Don’t worry, honey, I’ll hold onto you and we’ll face it together.” He paused, then said with sadness, “I should have said this to my granddaughter before it was too late.”

With that, the attendants disappeared with their charges. The older woman next to me, who had been looking hesitant, firmed her lips and sniffed. “When it’s too late, it’s too late.”

Make a hole!

Just then I was shoved from behind. “Make a hole!” someone behind me yelled. “I’m escorting some very important people straight to the gate.”

At this announcement, a protest went up. Many people in the line did fall back, but others stood their ground. “No one’s getting in ahead of me!” my male friend yelled. But those who fell back had created the hole and the VIP party swept in. Attendants started pulling out of line those who had given right of way.

“That’ll teach ‘em!” my female friend crowed as she watched those who had fallen back disappear. “We just can’t step aside because some people with delusions of grandeur think they’re more important and need to be processed before everyone else.”

I was puzzled though. Why would Peter allow VIPs to displace people who had been standing in line and waiting their turn? What kind of fairness was that?

The speculation begins

“There’s not as many people left in line now,” I said, waving my hand toward those who were left. “Perhaps we should introduce ourselves before we get processed so we can find each other later.”

“I’m Nick,” the man said. “Had a wife and two kids. We were living the American Dream, I guess you could say. Kate sometimes nagged about having more kids, but we couldn’t afford more kids. And, hey, now I’m no longer there, so I guess I was right after all about that.”

“Dolores,” the woman said. “Church was my life. Made that sanctuary shine with Pledge and elbow grease. I also mentored the younger women, making certain they dressed modestly and knew their place. My husband and I had nine kids before he passed on a few years back.”

Suddenly my two new friends started looking at each other suspiciously. Where they had once been friendly and open, they now turned away from each other. Dolores glanced at me, muttered a quick “Excuse me,” and moved off—probably in search of people she had more in common with.

“Old bat,” Nick muttered. I looked over at him. “Just like my mother; always judging people who don’t make the same choices she did.” Without another word, he moved off too. I could still see Dolores and Nick from my place in line—hell, there was a lot of room now where once it had been crowded—but I didn’t think we’d be friendly again.

The pearly gates

What was left of the line moved closer to the gates. I looked around, curiously, and everything was just as I expected. White wisps filled the air around us, nearly shrouding me so I couldn’t see far ahead. But as the line moved, the gates came into view. Yes, just as advertised, golden and pearly. At the doors was placed a huge, ornate desk, a book opened upon its surface and an imposing man behind who scowled out at the newcomers.

“Stand back,” he snarled. “Don’t you see the sign?” I looked down at the front of his desk. Indeed there was a large signboard, covered in gold script:

For the privacy of our patients, stay behind the designated line until your name is called.

An attendant popped up again and gestured to a waiting area far enough back from the desk so that we could hear nothing. “There,” the attendant said curtly. “Your turn will come soon enough.”

Dolores

“Dolores!” barked the man at the desk, and Dolores stepped forward. They talked for a while, and Dolores began to look more and more apprehensive. Suddenly the gatekeeper spoke loud enough for all of us to hear.

“Do you think you belong here?” he asked.

Dolores nodded without hesitation. “Yes!”

He handed her a packet and sent her through the gates.

Nick

“Nick!”

Striding forward, Nick took his place in front of the gatekeeper. Nick gulped visibly, then said, “I have nothing to hide. Ask your questions so I can answer them in front of everyone.”

The gatekeeper eyed him speculatively. “Just one question then. Do you have any regrets?”

Nick’s bravado disappeared. He hung his head. “I was selfish. All I cared about was getting ahead. If Kate and I had more kids, maybe she’d have more family in the future to help her through the decades ahead.”

“I see,” the gatekeeper replied, scowling again. “Damn it, you should have shut up. You don’t belong here.” He bellowed for attendants.

Nick paled. “Wh– what?” he stuttered. “What did I say wrong?”

“Never mind that! I don’t have more time for you. Get him out of here, and take him somewhere where he can ‘make peace’ with his failures,” the gatekeeper ordered, snidely emphasizing the words make peace with air quotes and a sing-song voice.

The interview

“You!” the gatekeeper roared, pointing at me. “Your turn. Get up here.”

This was really Peter?, I thought. His attitude didn’t seem all that saintly. I cleared my throat and asked what was on my mind, “You’re Peter?” I didn’t ask it too loudly though, thinking back to Nick’s imprudence.

“One: Why didn’t you give up your place in line when we asked for volunteers?”

I shrugged. “I didn’t see why I should have to wait any longer than I had to.”

The gatekeeper nodded. “Fair enough. Moving on, question two. Was there anyone in line who needed your help?”

The sobbing young woman crossed my mind, but someone else had stepped up, right? “No. What difference would it make if we’re already dead?”

“Uh huh. Question three: What about the VIPs?”

“Yeah, what about them?” I snarled. “Why did you allow them to push their way through instead of sending them back to the end of the line? What kind of justice was that?”

“Mmm, hmm. We’ll make a note of that,” the gatekeeper replied, marking something in his book. “So, what was your life like?”

“Is this an official question or conversation?” Man, was I getting bold or what? “Oh, fine. My life was fine. I did everything I was supposed to and didn’t make trouble.”

“Okay, final question.” Just as he had done for Dolores, the gatekeeper raised his voice, “Do you think you belong here?”

I smiled. A yes here had gotten Dolores through the pearly gates. “Yes!” I bellowed back.

The gatekeeper smiled and lowered his voice again. “Congratulations. You’re exactly the kind of person we enjoy having here.” He handed me a packet, just as he had done for Dolores, and said, “Open this after you get through the gates. It will tell you everything you need to know about this place.”

The other side of the gates

I snapped the packet to my brow in a mock salute and then strode through the gates. On the other side, I looked around. Unlike where I’d been, this place didn’t look like anything. Or, perhaps, it looked like nothing. No one around to ask either. I shrugged. I’d have eternity to get used to it, and the packet would give me answers. I ripped open the packet and pulled out a single page. Eagerly, I unfolded the paper.

Okay, if you’re interested in NFP, you might want to skip the NFP denier.

But what could a single woman possibly have to say on the subject? Believe it or not, plenty.

Fertility awareness for the single Catholic woman

Single women do have a need to know about fertility awareness, even if they do not have plans to marry in their foreseeable future. For example, before I started keeping track of such things, there could be a rude shock once a month or so. And once I started keeping track, I also started getting interested in what was going on around mid-cycle. Then there are the medical checkups, at which a standard question is “On what day did you start your last period?” Instead of looking at the nurse blank-faced and stuttering, “Uh, dunno, maybe a couple of weeks ago?” I can pull out my smartphone and say, “There’s an app for that.”

My interest in NFP is not just limited to not being caught off-guard anymore when Aunt Flo drops by for a visit though. At Catholic Answers, the apologists get lots of questions about NFP, and the women apologists get to answer the questions about “lady days.” (Yes, the guys get all the questions specific to male sexuality.) So, I’ve had to learn more than I may ever need to know personally about NFP.

The buzz about birth control

Recently, in the weeks since the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision, there’s been a surge of discussion about contraception and why women are prescribed drugs commonly used for contraception. One example was a widely-circulated BuzzFeed article, in which nearly two-dozen female employees at BuzzFeed gave their reasons for using birth control. Initially, I chose not to comment on it on my Facebook page, but then two different responses to the article caught my attention for different reasons.

In the first case, I noticed a post in my newsfeed in which someone said, “I want to save this [article] to pass out to the old maids at the nursing home (whose non-kids non-visit them).” The misogyny in the thread spiraled down from there, with one male commenter referring to the women in the BuzzFeed piece as “slags” (presumably a portmanteau created from the words slut and hag).

Because, naturally, the way for good Christians to spread the love of Jesus to women who believe they need contraceptive drugs—or other forms of birth control—for one reason or another is to assume that these women deserve to be scorned in old age as lonely, bitter “slags” who got their just deserts from their life choices. As one of my Facebook friends pointed out, such comments did not account for the fact that not all of the women who shared their reasons for using these drugs said they did so because they wanted to avoid having children altogether. In more than one case, there were legitimate medical reasons for turning to these drugs, such as treating menstrual cramps and adult acne.

Which brings me to the second case. In response to BuzzFeed’s post, the web site Catholic Sistas decided to ask its contributors to share their reasons “why we don’t use birth control.”In the original version of the article, which has since been edited to reflect corrections received after publication, the author asserted:

As Catholics, we should know and understand that any form of contraception, even for “medical purposes,” between a sexually active couple is never permitted.

My interest was snagged by the reference to Catholic Answers, and I skimmed through the tract that was linked to make certain. As I thought, there was no such statement made that “contraception, even for ‘medical purposes'” is “never permitted.” On Facebook, I responded:

I don’t know where these women got the idea that contraceptive-type drugs used for legitimate medical (i.e., non-contraceptive) purposes cannot be used by a sexually-active (married) couple, but it wasn’t from Catholic Answers. It was from Catholic Answers that I first learned (and as an apologist myself now have passed on) that the Church does not forbid marital relations between a couple who are using these drugs solely for legitimate, non-contraceptive, therapeutic purposes.

As I said, the post has since been edited. The correction reads:

ETA: We thank each of you for your comments and feedback. This post has been edited to reflect Humanae Vitae’s article 15 regarding the use of artificial birth control for medical purposes. We must point out though that while using artificial birth control for true medical concerns (and these are limited in nature) is approved they must never be used with contraception in mind, only to treat the medical need. In the Catholic faith the use of artificial contraception is not allowed to prevent life. We encourage you to research and to read what the Church truly teaches in regard to this matter. This law applies to Catholics and we understand that not everyone who is reading here is Catholic. We do not wish to force our beliefs on you, however, as a Catholic site who sits fully in line with the magisterium we will always promote the Truth and the ways of the Catholic faith.

Humanae Vitae states: “On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever” (HV 15).

Non-contraceptive use for The Pill for the married Catholic woman

This is only a partial correction though. Left unaddressed is the question of whether a married woman with a legitimate medical need for the drug(s) commonly prescribed for contraceptive purposes may engage in conjugal relations with her husband. In my experience, this is a point on which many orthodox Catholics are confused. Here is one answer I have given on the subject during my time as a staff apologist for Catholic Answers:

The Church does not require that a married woman, who takes medication for a legitimate medical purpose that has the unintended side effects of temporary sterilization and/or possible pregnancy loss, must abstain from marital relations while using that medication.

If a person has proportionately grave reason to take a medication for a legitimate medical purpose, then unintended side effects of that medication fall under the principle of double effect. The purpose of taking the medication is to treat a legitimate malady; there is no purpose to cause temporary sterilization or to abort a child. Under such conditions, the temporary sterilization and the possibility—not the certainty—of a pregnancy loss (not an abortion, which implies a deliberate act against the child) are accepted but not willed.

Because marital relations are of such high importance to the health of a marriage, the Church is extremely careful in this age of the breakdown of marriage to avoid placing unnecessary burdens upon the married couple [see this document as one example of the Church’s light touch in the pastoral care of married couples]. Those Catholics giving counsel in this area need to be especially careful not to bind consciences more strictly than does the Church, and to substantiate assertions from the Church’s documents when they must say that abstinence from marital relations is “required.”

This answer did not go unchallenged. It was originally posted in EWTN’s Apologetics Q&A forum. In an all-too-common attempt by readers to see a fight between experts, someone asked the Pro-Life Q&A forum’s moderator, Judie Brown of the American Life League, to comment. Judie Brown disagreed, which is her prerogative, and I responded:

It is the responsibility of the person stating that the Church does “require” a particular course of action to be the one to substantiate that positive assertion from the documents of the Church.

In other words, anyone who wants to bind a married couple’s conscience in this matter should be asked to provide substantiation that such a binding of conscience is required by the magisterium of the Church in authoritative Church documents.

Making necessary distinctions

I’ve often thought that much of the confusion over the non-contraceptive uses of The Pill arises from a misuse of terms. Those using The Pill for non-contraceptive reasons will say that they need to use “birth control” for cramps or adult acne or for some other therapeutic reason. But, if they do not intend to prevent pregnancy, then what they mean is that they take a drug commonly prescribed for contraceptive purposes to treat a legitimate medical problem.

This is not a small distinction. It lies at the root of the political firefight over whether or not insurance coverage for these drugs can be legitimate healthcare or is instead, always and everywhere, a “lifestyle choice” that should be paid for by the individual. If the drugs treat legitimate medical problems, then the Church does not object to their use (even if there are alternative treatments that could be pursued and may work better). Only when these drugs are used as a means to achieve the end of preventing pregnancy does the Church throw out a penalty flag.

What about NFP?

Circling back to our beginning, what then could we take away from National NFP Awareness Week? I certainly hope it won’t be that There Is No Such Thing as Natural Family Planning. After all, why should anyone promote awareness of something that doesn’t exist? I also hope that it won’t be that NFP is a religious bugaboo and that Catholics should be commanded to “pray about how their marital intimacy can help them grow in holiness and receptivity to God’s will” before they are allowed to get married.

Rather, what I hope we might take away from this week’s NFP educational programming is that NFP is, if anything, a form of physical discipline. Not discipline in the sense of punishment but in the sense of self-mastery. Those who use it, whether they be Catholic, Protestant, non-Christian, or non-theist—and whether they be married or single—can learn a great deal about reproductive biology and how to become responsible wielders of the superpower of fertility. (Yes, that is an allusion to Spider-Man there.) For theists, such knowledge can increase our awareness that we are “intricately wrought” (Psalm 139:15). For atheists, perhaps such knowledge can raise awareness that we need not “fool Mother Nature” to achieve a legitimate measure of control over human reproduction.

Our words would not be an adequate expression of the thought and solicitude of the Church, mother and teacher of all peoples, if, after having recalled men to the observance and respect of the divine law regarding matrimony, they did not also support mankind in the honest regulation of birth amid the difficult conditions which today afflict families and peoples. The Church, in fact, cannot act differently toward men than did the Redeemer (HV 19).

Filed under: Apologetics]]>http://michellearnold.org/2014/07/23/nfp-and-the-single-girl/feed/10peacejoypancakesA satirical Victorian-era postcard for the burgeoning "birth control" movementRitz Crackers and a Battery-Operated Candlehttp://michellearnold.org/2014/07/21/ritz-crackers-and-a-battery-operated-candle/
http://michellearnold.org/2014/07/21/ritz-crackers-and-a-battery-operated-candle/#commentsTue, 22 Jul 2014 06:22:01 +0000http://michellearnold.org/?p=241Continue reading →]]>I was flipping through the most recent edition (July 18–31) of the National Catholic Reporter today, and paused when I came to the Letters to the Editor. While NCR is a very good source of reporting on Catholic affairs, its editorial slant very much leans leftward and the readership oftentimes reflects that perspective. Sometimes the letters can be quite entertaining, and this time was no exception—at first glance anyway.

A reader wrote in response to a previous issue’s article on “the excommunication of leaders of We Are Church in Austria (NCR, June 6–19),” the excommunication levied because the group attempted to celebrate Mass without a priest. The reader sympathized with the problems experienced by those “who treasure the Mass but are deprived of attendance for an extended period” and explained how he and his wife celebrate “a memorial, not Mass” that “is a good reminder of who we are.” He stated:

My wife and I are 92 and 90 years of age. For years, we attended daily Mass. Now in a retirement home and without a car, that is no longer possible. But we want to keep a sense of frequent Mass alive.

We have a ceramic marriage cup that is a suitable chalice. We always have wine in our apartment. No bread, but Ritz crackers. A battery-operated candle. A small towel topped with a Kleenex is a suitable altar cloth. The desk is almost altar-like.

We have a booklet with the ordinary prayers of the Mass and we choose our own Scripture readings.

We know it isn’t a Mass, but it is a memorial. As we break the Ritz-host we say, “We are the body of Christ.” In drinking from the wedding cup, we say, “And we remember the blood of Christ.”

Not a word from the editor in comment on this quasi-liturgical “service” that mimics a Mass, which was offered by the presumably Catholic reader with the intent of encouraging other Catholics to go and do likewise. And where is this spiritual wasteland where this couple evidently is entirely unable to go to Mass, and even prevented from channel-surfing to find a televised Mass? The reader writes to NCR from Seattle, Washington.

It would be easy to snicker over the details of this account, which sounds for all the world like the kind of pretend liturgy that small children would create for an afternoon’s play. Ritz crackers? A battery-operated candle? Kleenex on a towel on a desk? Yes, indeed, I could enjoy a chortle or two, but for one small detail:

My wife and I are 92 and 90 years of age. For years, we attended daily Mass. Now in a retirement home and without a car, that is no longer possible.

When I picture two nonagenarians carefully arranging a “memorial liturgy” and munching on Ritz crackers because they no longer have transportation to Mass, the scene I see is just too heartbreaking for laughter. A quick eyeroll perhaps over how this sad little rite is said to remind these two of “who we are” (as distinguished from who God is), but no more. Because then it is time to get angry for them.

Why are these two elderly Catholics entirely cut off from the sacraments? When they stopped attending daily Mass, did no one notice? Or care? Did the parish where they attended daily Mass “for years” follow up to find out what had become of this couple before crossing their names off the list of families to receive envelopes? Did the bulletins they presumably received for years ever mention how homebound parishioners or their caregivers could arrange to receive the sacraments?

Evidently not. And so two 90-something Catholics are left to nibble on make-believe hosts by the light of a battery-operated candle.

Homebound on a Sunday morning

I often hear from Catholics wondering what to do when they are unable to go to Mass anymore. They want to know if they are sinning by missing Mass on Sundays. Or I will hear from adult children wanting to know if their parents are sinning. I never hear from parishes wanting to know what they can do to help homebound Catholics receive the sacraments.

Not only that, but I also hear from Catholics trying to arrange pastoral care to the homebound who are pushed away. Let me tell you one such story.

A few years ago, a friend was regularly visiting a gentleman who was even older than the couple in the retirement home. His end was near, and although he wasn’t a Catholic, he wanted to see a priest. The problem was that he had senile dementia and his times of lucidity could not be pinpointed.

My friend called several parishes in our area searching for a priest willing to come out and talk to her friend. She even begged one priest in person. Not one was willing to visit the gentleman because the patient’s lucidity could not be guaranteed. Finally, a mutual friend recommended our diocese’s FSSP parish. Sure enough, one of the priests there immediately agreed to visit, and ultimately spent hours at a time over several days visiting my friend’s friend—and visiting other patients in the facility too when the patient he was there to see was not lucid enough to talk.

What appalled my friend (and what appalled me upon hearing the story) was how difficult it was to get a priest to make time to visit a dying man who indicated that he wanted to see a priest. Sure, we both “got it” that priests are incredibly busy—but I doubt they were any more busy than the priest who finally agreed, and who found ways to make good use of the time he had to wait to talk with the patient.

Non-Christians at the wheel

Not long after that experience, I heard of a transportation program of the local Jewish Family Services. This program, called On the Go, ferries seniors aged 60 and over to appointments around the city. Not only will the service take seniors to doctor appointments and for errands, but they will take seniors to religious services and even (I learned when I looked into the program) down to the docks to catch a cruise ship. And they offer this service not just to Jewish families but to all San Diego seniors, regardless of religious affiliation. Which means that Catholic seniors in San Diego can get rides to Mass from a non-Christian charitable organization—if they happen to know of its availability.

Why is it, I had to ask myself, that there is no equivalent Catholic group that I know of that is stepping up to the plate to get Catholic seniors in their local communities to Mass?

To catch a good thief

Frankly, the lack of ordinary care among Catholics for those unable to attend Mass and receive the other sacraments on their own is appalling. And it is nothing new. Allow me to share one more story.

In his memoir, Treasure in Clay, Bishop Fulton Sheen tells of a parish he visited in a poor neighborhood that had received a gift of $10,000 to build a shrine dedicated to the Blessed Mother. When Sheen questioned the size of the gift and the ability of anyone in the parish to afford such a donation, the pastor said it was given by the sister of an elderly former bank robber, probably as conscience money given as a way of making up for her brother’s notorious life. Sheen asked if the pastor had ever tried to talk to the robber about making his peace with God. The pastor said no.

So Sheen went to visit the elderly bank robber himself. The man was uninterested in Sheen’s efforts. It had been seventy years since the man’s last confession and he thought it would be cowardly to ask God to forgive him at the very end of his life. Sheen recounts what happened next:

“Well,” [Sheen] said, “let us see how brave you are tomorrow morning. I will come here to your door at eight o’clock. I will not be alone; I will bring the good Lord with me in the Blessed Sacrament. I am sure that you will not turn us both away.”

When [Sheen] returned in the morning, [the elderly bank robber] opened the door. [Sheen] heard his confession and gave him Communion—which proved to be viaticum because he died the next day. He was not the first thief the Lord saved on his last day (p. 204, e-book edition).

What can be done

Yes, priests are very busy, and not every one of them will have Bishop Fulton Sheen’s drive to search out lost sheep to bring them home. (They should at least desire that drive, but it is a gift, and even as a gift it requires developing a knack.) But there are some things I think all priests can do, both to reach out to those in need and to encourage their parishioners to help in the effort.

Use the media. The parish bulletin, newsletter, web site, and/or Facebook page should all have a standard notice of how the homebound in the parish boundaries can approach the parish for the sacraments. Information on how to receive Communion to the homebound, and how to arrange for clergy visits for confession and anointing of the sick for the homebound, should be standard on every media platform a parish maintains. It is not enough to say that confession is available “by appointment” or to offer “an emergency phone number.” People need the procedure spelled out and repeated often.

Make welfare checks. If a family is about to be crossed off the parish’s list of registered families because they haven’t used their envelopes in a while, someone at the parish should be assigned to call and ask how the family is doing. I once fielded a question from a person who was appalled that her elderly parents, founding members of the parish, had been told that they were no longer “eligible” to have funeral services at that parish when the time came because they hadn’t used their envelopes in years and thus were thought to no longer be parishioners. Turns out they were homebound and in straitened circumstances, no longer able to donate to the parish.

Create ride-share programs. If a Jewish charitable organization can create a transportation program and, as part of the program, take Catholics to Mass, there is no reason why Catholics should not be finding ways to reach out to fellow Catholics in their area to offer rides to Mass. Period. And priests are the ones who should be encouraging their parishioners to organize such an effort.

Go the extra mile. A Catholic should not have to call three parishes begging priests to visit the dying, desperately searching for one who will agree. Parishes should have a plan in place to handle such requests before they arise. If an extraordinary minister or a deacon can be dispatched to assess the situation first, then that’s fine. But if a priest is needed, then the parish should figure out a plan of action to arrange coverage for their priests when the priests must go out on unexpected sick calls. Having a plan in place now means that a priest may have the ability to say at some point, “Yes, of course, let me grab my stole, oils, and a consecrated host, and I’ll be right over.”

The bottom line is that every Catholic should be confident that nothing more than a brief phone call is necessary to arrange for needed pastoral care, either for himself or for his loved ones. No one should be left alone with a Ritz cracker and a battery-operated candle to suffice as a “memorial” of the sacraments.

Introduction: It hasn’t been long since I originally published this essay at the Catholic Answers Blog, and yet there is so much I still wish I could say on the subject of celebrity priests.

What has been gnawing at me lately is a subset of the problem: Priests who inject themselves far too freely into discussing politics, and in ways that demonize political opponents. Whether they hold forth on moral evils like abortion, or on subjects that allow for more than one viewpoint (e.g., immigration, welfare reform, gun control), these priestly political pundits too often speak in terms that alienate laity who disagree with them politically but still have a right to their priestly care.

In opposition to the priest-pundits is Pope Francis, who said not too long ago that he did not vote in Argentinian elections, even though voting is required by law there, because he felt that to involve himself directly in the political process was not appropriate for someone called by his priestly ordination to be “a father to all.” He acknowledged that entirely refraining from voting was not required of a priest, but he evidently considered it necessary for his own objectivity and accessibility to his spiritual flock. And while I agree with Pope Francis that abstaining from voting is not required of clergy, I do believe that it is a choice that can guard against the temptation to clergy to roll around in the political mud—and to become celebrity pundits solely on the basis of their ordination. . . .

Over the past couple of years, since Catholic Answers’ Director of Development Christopher Check joined the staff, the staff has had the pleasure of several visits from Chris’s brother, Fr. Paul Check. Fr. Check is a priest of the Diocese of Bridgeport(Connecticut), and is the Executive Director of Courage, an apostolate that assists those who have same-sex attraction to live chaste lives in accordance with Church teaching. A couple of things impressed me during his visits.

The first time Fr. Check visited, he gave a talk to the staff about same-sex attraction and the work of Courage. Afterwards he made himself available to the staff for confession or private questions. I sought him out because I was wondering what his take was on recent stories in the headlines, in particular a case in which a longtime teacher was fired from a Catholic high school after the name of the teacher’s same-sex partner was listed in a newspaper obituary. I wondered how cases like this, which are becoming more common by the day, should be handled from a pastoral perspective. How do we both uphold the Church’s moral teachings while not being unduly punitive or cruel to individuals (and their families) who may suffer greatly because of immediate terminations?

Fr. Check was very honest and very blunt: He simply did not know.

On another visit, it was Advent and Fr. Check was to give another talk to the staff, this time on the Blessed Mother. He opened this talk by smiling broadly and noting that, as much as he is grateful for the opportunities he has to speak on the Church’s teachings on same-sex attraction for Courage, he was delighted on this occasion to talk about something else. It was not often these days that he was asked to give a talk on Catholic spirituality, and evidently he had been looking forward to this opportunity.

What was it about these incidents that so impressed me?

Well, in the first case, although I did not get my curiosity satisfied, I was impressed that Fr. Check realized that situations like the one I asked him about are complicated and do not have easy answers. He was willing to acknowledge that he did not have the answer to this particular conundrum. This was remarkable, at least in my eyes, because the dilemma of what to do about a Catholic high school teacher living with a same-sex partner seemed to be well within Fr. Check’s realm of expertise. Many experts these days often are more than willing to toss off glib speculations about what should be done in situations of which they may not have firsthand knowledge but fall within their area of specialization.

In the second case, I was impressed that Fr. Check did not want to be focused on the issue of same-sex attraction one hundred percent of the time. As devoted as he is to the souls of the men and women he has been especially charged to care for, he sometimes just wants to be a “regular priest” giving a meditation on the Blessed Mother.

In other words, in both cases, what impressed me about Fr. Check was, for lack of a better term, a remarkable lack of ego. Despite being a respected expert in his field, he knew what he did not know and he was joyful at opportunities to do the work of an ordinary diocesan priest. One gets the feeling that if his bishop called up Fr. Check tomorrow and asked him to resign from Courage and become an associate pastor at St. Anonymous Catholic Church on the poor side of Bridgeport, he might miss the work he had done for Courage but move on to a new assignment with no regrets. I could imagine Fr. Check saying along with St. John the Baptist, “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30).

The case of the celebrity priest

I wish I could say that this attitude is normative among the well-known priests whose work for the Church in various capacities is familiar to me, but one reason I was so impressed with Fr. Check is that his lack of ego is all too often not normative.

Much more normative is the phenomenon of the rock-star priest. Whether he is a talking head on news networks, a guest star on talk shows, a well-known commentator in newspapers and magazines, or a superstar in cyberspace, the rock-star priest seems to have all the answers. And he is willing to offer them to you for the price of his latest book, a “love offering” to his apostolate, a bit of junky swag from his online shop, or a monthly donation to his favorite cause (himself).

A friend of mine has witnessed rock-star priests signing autographs and being wisked away to be wined and dined by adoring fans. Another friend told me about the arrival at a conference of a now-disgraced priest that reminded her of the arrival of the Beatles—spotlights shining, music thumping, crowd swooning. It was then that her Spidey-sense warned her years ahead of time that something was wrong.

Please understand me: I am a fierce defender of supporting priests in their ministry, and I can get quite sharp with lay Catholics who are stingy in supporting priests. What I am critiquing here is the priest who markets himself as a guru of all things Catholic, and in the process becomes a diva who seems to expect and demand all the perks of priestly stardom.

What is some of the fallout from the phenomenon of rock-star priests? The most obvious effect is the onslaught of scandals in recent years as celebrity priest after celebrity priest has fallen from glory. A small sampling of cases include three superstars of Catholic television: Fr. John Corapi, who left the priesthood after allegations of misconduct; Fr. Francis Mary Stone, who admitted to becoming “very close” with a widow and her family, and eventually left the priesthood to marry her; and Fr. Alberto Cutié, who left the priesthood and the Church to marry his lover. Other sad stories of celebrity priests gone astray can be found here, helpfully summarized by Fr. Cutié in an attempt to justify his own failures.

Another, less-obvious effect is the toll on vulnerable souls who put their trust in these rock-star priests. I once had to comfort a woman bewildered by the defection of her favorite celebrity priest, which triggered in her anxiety about her faith. If this priest who seemed so good and holy could fall away from the faith, what hope did she have? I had to explain to her that our hope is in the Lord and not in fallen men—even those fallen men who have been ordained.

Questions to consider

I cannot presume to offer advice to priests on how to avoid the trap of celebrity. I can only leave that to the discernment of the priest and his bishop. But I can offer my fellow laity some questions to ponder when discerning whether or not they should retreat from the mosh pits surrounding the superstar priests with whom they are familiar.

How open is he to criticism? Does your favorite celebrity priest respond well to concerns raised about what he is teaching the masses? Does he listen when fraternal correction is offered, or does he (as a friend discovered with one celebrity priest) send a form letter saying he is “too busy” to take the time to meet with qualified laity who want to talk with him about controversial claims he has made?

Does he have “regular duties”? If a priest is not regularly offering Mass and the other sacraments, praying his breviary, and caring for souls in the ordinary manner of his calling as either a diocesan or religious priest, then something is bound to be wrong. Any priest who does not celebrate the sacraments and act as a father to souls—all souls, not just a chosen few favorites whom he likes or who confirm him in his stardom—is, as my father liked to say about those heedlessly racing down dangerous paths, “riding for a fall.”

Is he under the oversight of a bishop or religious superior? Priests can never be lone rangers. They must always be accountable either to a bishop (if they are diocesan priests) or a religious superior (if they are members of a religious community). A priest who does not live in his diocese or with his religious community might be heading into difficult terrain. This is not always the case, of course, since priests are sometimes “lent out” to distant dioceses or mission territories, or permitted for legitimate reasons to incardinate in a different diocese than the one for which ordained. Some religious priests are allowed to leave their religious community, incardinate as a diocesan priest, and remain a priest in good standing. But a priest should always be accountable to someone and that someone he is accountable to should be readily apparent to the laity.

Does he make a fuss about being reassigned? A priest promises obedience to either the bishop of his diocese or the religious superior of his community. A priest who squawks when told that the bishop wants him to take up new duties is a priest of whom you should be wary. This is particularly the case when he either allows or encourages the public to apply pressure to a bishop or religious superior to rescind the reassignment. No one priest is irreplaceable, no matter how worthy the cause to which he has devoted himself, and any priest who fights a reassignment has demonstrated that he is not a servant but a guru. He may well be at risk of falling prey to the cult of personality.

The example of Venerable Fulton Sheen

One of the first celebrity priests in the United States, and certainly the most famous among them, was Bishop Fulton Sheen. From the golden age of radio through the early days of television, Bishop Sheen was a fixture in American homes, trusted and revered by Catholics, non-Catholics, and even non-Christians. His rhetorical powers were legendary, and he was responsible for uncounted numbers of conversions to the Catholic Church (uncounted precisely because he refused to count how many people he instructed and received into the Church).

In light of the recent history of fallen priestly stars, one might expect Bishop Sheen to have been susceptible to the allure of celebrity. After all, a man of Sheen’s stature, who at the height of his popularity could inspire 15,000–25,000 fan letters per day over a period of years, could be understood if his head was turned by his own stardom. But Sheen was, for the most part, remarkably immune to temptation in this area. One reason for that may be because of an incident that happened when he was a young priest.

In his memoir, Treasure in Clay, Bishop Sheen tells the story of what happened after he graduated with high honors from the Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium. He had a host of offers waiting for him, and he asked his bishop back in Peoria, Illinois, which he should accept. His bishop told him to come home to Peoria. Once he returned, young Fr. Sheen was assigned to be an assistant at a parish in a poor part of town.

Locals were flabbergasted. How could the bishop have spent so much money to send Fr. Sheen off to Europe to be educated and then bury him in an obscure parish? Evidently Fr. Sheen’s own parents felt some consternation also because Sheen says he “begged [his] parents never to take part in any conversation about the bishop.” Fr. Sheen was disappointed at the apparent loss of “a more intellectual vocation” but accepted his assignment as the will of God. Then one day, the bishop called. The conversation between Sheen and his bishop went like this:

[The bishop said] “Three years ago I promised you to Bishop Shahan of the Catholic University [of America] as a member of the faculty.”

[Sheen] asked: “Why did you not let me go there when I returned from Europe?”

“Because of the success you had on the other side, I just wanted to see if you would be obedient. So run along now; you have my blessing” (Treasure in Clay, chapter 4, pp. 43–44).

Note: A version of this essay originally appeared on the Catholic Answers Blog (5/28/14). It is republished here with permission.

Filed under: Evergreens]]>http://michellearnold.org/2014/07/17/i-must-decrease/feed/3peacejoypancakesOne-time celebrity priest, Fr. Alberto CutiéThe Priest and the Prostitutehttp://michellearnold.org/2014/07/13/the-priest-and-the-prostitute/
http://michellearnold.org/2014/07/13/the-priest-and-the-prostitute/#commentsMon, 14 Jul 2014 00:00:57 +0000http://michellearnold.org/?p=219Continue reading →]]>The day before the Independence Day holiday weekend, the Catholic Answers staff headed up to Prince of Peace Abbey in Oceanside, California, for a retreat. It was led by a Norbertine priest from St. Michael’s Abbey in Silverado, California. The priest chose Divine Mercy as his topic for the retreat.

As part of his talk, he told us a story from the private revelation allegedly given to Maria Simma. I don’t know much about Maria Simma, except that she was a mystic who died a decade ago. According to our retreat master, her visions of visits with the holy souls in purgatory, as recorded in her book Get Us Out of Here!, have the approval of her local bishop. Nonetheless, Catholics are not required to put stock in private revelations, as is affirmed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church. Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations” (CCC 67).

But the story shared by our retreat master was so compelling that, even if the visions are not authentic, the story is a wonderful parable of the justice and mercy of God. For that reason, I’ll retell the story as a story rather than look up the incident in Simma’s writings and quote it directly.

Maria would receive visits from the holy souls in purgatory, begging her for her prayers and telling her tales of what was going on in purgatory (presumably to inspire more prayer for the holy souls). Many people who had heard that she was favored with these visits would write to Maria, asking about the fates of deceased family and friends.

One day someone wrote asking about the fate of a man and a woman in his village. The next time the holy souls visited, Maria asked them about these two. She wrote back with what she had been told: The woman had spent a brief time in purgatory and was now in heaven; the man was in purgatory and would remain there for a very long time.

Maria’s inquirer wrote back, “Now I know you are a fraud! That woman was a notorious prostitute in my village and died instantly after falling on the train tracks and being struck by a train. The man was a priest, known by all here for his holiness.”

Stunned, Maria asked the holy souls for clarification the next time they visited her. How could a notorious prostitute go to heaven almost immediately and a holy priest languish in purgatory?

The souls told her the rest of the story.

Yes, they said, the man was a holy priest . . . and that was why he was in purgatory and not in hell. He had been very harsh with sinners in the confessional, and he had denied the prostitute a Christian burial.

As for the woman, when she fell on the tracks, she looked up and saw the train coming. She knew she could not get away in time. Her last conscious thought before her death was, “My God, at least I will no longer offend you.” That contrition was sufficient for her salvation, and for the remittance of almost all punishment due for her sins. That was why she spent practically no time in purgatory and went almost straight to heaven.

Since hearing this story, several things about it struck me.

One, it is a modern-day retelling of the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector (Luke 18:9–14). Like the Pharisee who “trusted in [himself] that [he was] righteous and despised others,” the priest was holy and evidently knew it. Yes, he truly loved God, otherwise he would not have made it to purgatory; but he was not compassionate with those who had fallen and turned to him for assistance in rising. When the prostitute died, he gave more weight to the possibility of scandal than he did to the possibility that she might have died repentant and in need of the final graces of a Christian burial. The prostitute, on the other hand, looked up, saw her fate, and accepted it as her due. But her last thought was for God and what was due to God. However far she had fallen, she still loved God and ultimately desired not to offend him (even if she had not been able to live up to that desire during her lifetime).

Two, God truly is a God of justice and mercy. Those who want his justice will get justice—like Shylock in The Merchant of Venice, they “shalt have justice, more than thou desirest.” As Christ solemnly warns in one of the most frightening passages in all of Scripture, “For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get” (Matt. 7:2). And those who trust in his mercy will find it to be bottomless, poured out above and beyond even what they might have hoped: “Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners” (Matt. 9:13).

And, three, although I am no expert in such matters, I found a certain ring of authenticity to this story. The holy souls only gave Maria information about others in purgatory that she specifically requested. When she first asked, on behalf of her inquirer, for the fates of the man and the woman, she was given the bare facts: The man was in purgatory and would remain; the woman had left purgatory quickly and gone to heaven. Only when Maria asked for clarification, due to learning more about who the man and woman were, was she given more information. In other words, she was not a medium or necromancer, who was performing for an audience. Those who falsely claim to speak with the dead often reel off all sorts of information about what the dead are supposedly telling them, all of it meant to “comfort” survivors (and sometimes having the opposite effect). Maria only asked what was asked of her and told what she was told. When the information given turned out to be shocking, she asked for more details and then passed on the rest of the story.

Finally, I remembered something that happened shortly before my father died.

My father had been a difficult man in many ways, and I’ll just leave the recounting of his failures at that. He was not particularly religious, and he was given to depression. When he was diagnosed with terminal cancer, he very nearly fell into despair.

My mother died in December 2004 after having been ill for many years. Despite her long history of illness, we truly had not expected her to die when she did, especially when my father was the one expected to die soon. I’ve often thought that perhaps her body finally gave up because she just couldn’t bear to outlive him. In any case, when Mom died I was frightened that Dad would not be able to continue. But . . . surprisingly, he became almost (almost, he was still Dad) peaceful, and agreed to be placed in a hospice nursing care unit. He would spend just over three months there.

The weekend before he died, I went up to the hospital to visit him. During this visit, he slept most of the time I was there. When his roommate got up to use the restroom, I took the opportunity to talk to Dad, much as I had with Mom when she lay dying several months before.

Although Dad was not particularly religious, he did believe in God and he had allowed visits from the hospital chaplain in the months he was in the nursing unit. I wanted to find something to say to help him be ready for death, but I hadn’t “planned” anything. I just found myself saying, “When Jesus comes, tell him ‘I love you.'”

Right after I said that, Dad, who had been sleeping, suddenly jerked—just as if someone on his other side had jabbed him in the shoulder. Dad opened his eyes, smiled, nodded affirmatively, and went back to sleep. It would be the last time I “talked with” him.

It was in that moment that I knew that I didn’t have to worry for Dad any longer. I knew that he had made his peace with God, and his desire to say to Jesus “I love you” would be enough. And, as it turned out, Dad died on April 2, 2005—within twenty minutes of Pope St. John Paul II, the pope who promulgated to the universal Church the message of Divine Mercy.

His mercy is on those who fear him from generation to generation. He has shown strength with his arm, he has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts, he has put down the mighty from their thrones, and exalted those of low degree (Luke 1:50–52).

Filed under: Apologetics]]>http://michellearnold.org/2014/07/13/the-priest-and-the-prostitute/feed/12peacejoypancakesPurgatoryMy Dear Grubmuckhttp://michellearnold.org/2014/07/11/my-dear-grubmuck/
http://michellearnold.org/2014/07/11/my-dear-grubmuck/#commentsSat, 12 Jul 2014 01:20:34 +0000http://michellearnold.org/?p=214Continue reading →]]>Introduction: A few days ago, Brian C. Stiller, Global Ambassador of the World Evangelical Alliance, reported on his lunch with Pope Francis. Among other items of interest, he quoted the Pope as saying, “I’m not interested in converting Evangelicals to Catholicism. I want people to find Jesus in their own community. There are so many doctrines we will never agree on. Let’s not spend our time on those. Rather, let’s be about showing the love of Jesus.”

On cue, some Catholics began to scream.

What did Pope Francis mean by this? Yes, it’s ambiguous (and we only have a secondhand report of what was undoubtedly first spoken in either Spanish or Italian since the Pope does not converse easily in English). But he certainly did *not* say he was going to beat away converts from the door of the Church. He may have meant nothing more than he didn’t intend to actively proselytize (in the bad sense of that term).

I’ll leave it to others to analyze this incident more in-depth. But it did remind me of my single foray into Screwtapian satire, and so I invite you to read (or re-read) Screwtape’s take on Pope Francis and his minions. . . .

On the 13th day of March, in the despised year of our Enemy 2013.

My Dear Grubmuck,

I trust that it was made clear to you when you were contacted by Lower Command about this new assignment that I accepted you for this task with the gravest of concerns for your ability to accomplish the planned objective for Our Father Below. My hated nephew Wormwood—who managed to pin on his uncle that unfortunate incident of losing a patient to the Enemy some time ago (by the reckoning of the hairless bipeds) and has since descended more deeply into the bowels of Lowerarchy than I—recommended you to Our Father Below. Thus I was given no choice but to accept you, and so I will train you. I will also document everything, and you will find it most difficult to follow Wormwood’s path should you fail.

Let us review the assignment. On this day, within the Enemy’s Beachhead, called by some a “Church”—hell be upon her!—the bipeds selected a new Deputy to represent the Enemy.

Insofar as we can rejoice in anything, hell erupted with joy at the resignation of his predecessor. For one brief infernal moment, we saw huge possibilities once the Deputy Emeritus stepped down. He had long been a thorn in the side of Our Father Below, bringing painful light upon the person of Our Father’s ancient Enemy. We had been making slow but sure progress in crushing him beneath the weight of the world. The resignation seemed at first to demonstrate weakness, and thus we thought we had been victorious. But the Enemy’s promise that the truth shall set free a lover of truth prevailed yet again. Bygones, but rest assured that the Deputy Emeritus’s tempter is being appropriately punished as we speak.

Now we have turned our attention to the new Deputy. He has long been under our watchful gaze. Much to our dismay, and at the folly of his tempter, he knows that. A direct attack against him is not advisable at this time. You will have to attack him through those he loves. This route has served us well enough against the Enemy; it should continue to serve us in our war against his new Deputy.

Knowing this, Our Father Below has decided upon a two-pronged attack. We will set ourselves to fomenting confusion among the masses of the hairless bipeds in union with the Deputy. It is an enormous task, and you have been assigned to one prong of the attack. Another, more senior tempter will deal with those of the Enemy’s faithful who have found themselves to be at odds with previous Deputies, and who now see in the new one a hope for their reconciliation with their Church (HBUH!). It is a delicate task, as the Enemy is always despicably lavish with his welcome to those seeking a way home, and so it is not a task to be entrusted to so junior a tempter as you.

Your task will be much simpler. You will be set to tempting those who have loved the previous Deputies, who fancy themselves loyal minions of the Enemy, as demonstrated by their devotion to his Deputies. While their road has not been without its bumps during the reigns of the last two Deputies, they have had a relatively easy time for many of their years. If you play our cards right, Grubmuck, that complacency may be used to diabolical advantage. I offer you my battle plan. Should we succeed, the credit for the plan shall be mine. Should you fail, the failure to execute my plan shall be yours.

Right now, in the aftermath of his election, the faithful ones are rejoicing for their new Deputy. Some of them are charmed already by his gestures of humility, such as asking for their prayers and bowing to receive their blessing. As reports from their princes filter in of his manner of accepting election and of his choice to travel with them back to the Domus Sanctae Marthae, these fools will continue to be charmed. New Deputies have a honeymoon, of sorts, and this one will be no different. Bide your time awhile. While you are waiting, you may amuse yourself with a few of them, those who are more attached to what they imagine to be “tradition” than they are to the living, breathing Church—HBUH!—by tempting them to release dire warnings of the Deputy’s time in Buenos Aires and their speculation about what that may portend for his reign.

Soon enough, you may move forward by increments upon the rest of them.

Where the two previous Deputies were, respectively, a philosopher and a theologian, and therefore somewhat removed from the masses, this one is a pastor. He has decades of experience with boots on the ground among those That Blasted Woman called “the poorest of the poor.” By the very name he took upon election, this Deputy has pledged himself to be an advocate for those often forgotten by comfortable Western faithful whose most difficult stressor in the Enemy’s Camp, as yet, may have been along the lines of conflicts with their pastors. Capitalize upon this tendency to inflate small tribulations into massive “persecution.” Then amplify the conflict.

When the Deputy speaks of his deep concern for the poor, remind the comfortable conservatives of the unborn baby bipeds for whom they have long fought. You may ask if this is a risky strategy. It will only be risky if your patients remember why they fight for the unborn. They fight for the unborn because they see in the unborn the image of the Enemy. If they begin to see the Enemy in less comely faces, such as those of the slum dwellers the Deputy walked amidst and ministered to during his tenure in Buenos Aires, then they will begin to understand the Deputy’s fierce advocacy for the poor. But if they forget that and see the unborn as a helpful lever to advancing their cause of peace and prosperity for themselves, then all will be well. For us.

The Deputy may also urge the patients to remember why they are on the field of battle, and why they fight. He may seek to remind them that their goal is not surface conformity but inner transformation. If you guide them to believe that successful evangelization creates converts in their own image, rather than in the image of the Enemy, you will succeed in alienating from their efforts the very people who have been disaffected from the Enemy’s Camp for so long.

As time progresses, I will send you further instructions for the specifics of your task. For now I will close by sketching for you the end for which we aim.

You want your patients at odds with each other. Those who remain devoted to the new Deputy should be accusing those scandalized by him of rigorism. Those scandalized by the Deputy should be accusing the devoted of papalotry (a delightfully diabolical label of which our Research and Development team is especially proud). Both sides should direct more of their focus to causing hurt and anger for each other than they do to listening to the Deputy or attending to what he asks of them. While all of them are thus scattered and confused, we can pick them off from the Deputy’s flock in like manner to wolves selecting and devouring sheep separated from their shepherd.

Success is within our grasp, Grubmuck. I envision a day when the faithful fools who now cheer for this new Deputy, and proudly display their loyalty to him by fastening his prayer card to their refrigerator door, become so disillusioned by him that they toss him in their dustbin. They will vote him off their island, so to speak, because he did not keep them comfortable. He will make them uncomfortable, in much the same way his predecessors made uncomfortable those who distanced themselves from the Enemy’s Camp for other reasons.

At all costs, Grubmuck, we must not allow to take root any idea that the Deputies of our Enemy are icons of the Fisherman—weak, bumbling, sinful Peter, who nevertheless loved the Enemy and always returned to his side. One of the Enemy’s friends, and therefore our enemy, shared in a book we have worked hard to suppress his love for the Fisherman in all of the Fisherman’s icons. While visiting the Deputy who saw the Camp through the Second Vatican Council and began the work of its implementation, this hated enemy said to that Deputy:

“Your Holiness, I have just discovered how easy Judgment is going to be.”

“Oh,” [the Deputy] said, “tell me, I would like to know.”

“While I was waiting to come into your presence I had come to the conclusion that I had not loved the Church as much as I should. Now that I come before Your Holiness, I see the Church personalized. When I make my obedience to you, I make it to the Body and to the invisible Head, Christ. Now I see how much I love the Church in Your Holiness, its visible expression.”

He said: “Yes, Judgment is going to be that easy for those who try to serve the Lord.”

Our downfall, Grubmuck—yours, mine, that of Our Father Below, all hell’s—will be in sight if that sentiment ever gains ground.

Tremble while you await my next contact. I will remain in touch, and will keep my gaze fixed upon you.

Your affectionate trainer,
Screwtape

Nota bene: Angry demons will not extract from us how this letter dropped into our hands. We share this with you solely as a blog post for your personal illumination, while gratefully acknowledging our debt to C. S. Lewis for the letters from Screwtape he obtained and published as The Screwtape Letters. Without Lewis’s inspiration, this new infernal missive, not to be confused with his canon, would not have seen daylight.

Note: A version of this essay originally appeared on the Catholic Answers Blog (11/11/13). It is republished here with permission.

Filed under: Evergreens]]>http://michellearnold.org/2014/07/11/my-dear-grubmuck/feed/0peacejoypancakesScrewtapeHow to Answer Stupid Questionshttp://michellearnold.org/2014/07/07/how-to-answer-stupid-questions/
http://michellearnold.org/2014/07/07/how-to-answer-stupid-questions/#commentsTue, 08 Jul 2014 05:27:57 +0000http://michellearnold.org/?p=193Continue reading →]]>It’s become something of a genre for advice columnists: What not to say to . . . a pregnant woman, a grieving parent, someone who has cancer. Those are the times when unconsidered words can cause either distress or deep pain for someone who is already experiencing anything from stress to abject grief. Then there are also other primers on how to get ahead by not saying the wrong thing to . . . a customer service representative, your boyfriend (or your girlfriend), your boss.

People, being people, continue on engaging in what etiquette expert Judith Martin (“Miss Manners”) has called blather, which is (more or less) the practice of filling conversation gaps with any ill-considered question that enters a person’s head without filtering it first for appropriateness. There is not much that will stop people from asking questions without thinking, and so the victims of such rudeness are constantly on the hunt for the perfect put-down that will so crush the offender that he will never offend again.

I have to mention that I sympathize with this quest for the great one-liner that will stop stupid questions. I am not naturally a patient person, and have had to build some patience (and coping strategies) over the years for cracks like “You’re an apologist, huh? Why do you want to make a living always saying, ‘I’m sorry’?”

But today, while reading yet another rant about the stupid questions people ask parents of many children, it occurred to me that the search for the perfect put-down to stop stupid questions is misguided. Before I explain what I think might work better instead, let’s first look at the stupid questions people ask parents of large families.

This blogger, in a post she herself admits “was deemed rather too much like a rant,” goes on (and on . . . and on) about how offended she is whenever people ask her if all the little children she has with her were “planned”:

In a special partnership with God, my spouse and I were given these children to custodian, guide and love. In many ways, I have failed to be worthy of that charge. But I am learning and I am trying. My latest revelation is that I am not okay with this whole scenario where you are in uncomfortable shock at the size of my family and ask me about it.

There is a fundamental disconnect in our thinking. That much should be obvious.

As a Catholic, I believe that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children. And you believe . . . whatever it is that you believe. The fact that you believe something different doesn’t make it okay or acceptable for you to question me on why I have so many kids or if I meant to.

Despite being a 40-something confirmed spinster, I started reading this post with a good deal of sympathy for the blogger. After all, I knew the problem she complained about was widespread. Other Catholic bloggers with large families have also vented their spleens over the stupid questions they get about the size of their family and have tried to formulate ready-made zingers to keep on the tip of their tongue for the next time they are challenged on how many kids they have while hunting for peas in the frozen-food section of the supermarket.

But somewhere by the middle of this particular blogger’s rant, I began to lose sympathy for her and began to gain some sympathy for her inquirers. I started to wonder how I’d feel if I unthinkingly asked someone an admittedly stupid question and was told, “Actually, we’re planning on breeding out everyone that believe [sic] in contraception.” If I was a non-Catholic, admiring (as was admitted) a larger than the usual-sized family, and then was sharply reprimanded in public for asking what I might think to be a friendly question? Well, even if I later realized that I deserved the set-down, I’d be resentful for being deliberately shamed by someone who may be the mother of many small children but who is not my mother. And if she then told me in a superior tone, “I’m Catholic. And Catholics believe using contraceptives is sinful”? I wouldn’t like Catholics very much, and I certainly wouldn’t be interested in joining their “wacky fertility cult” (denials to the contrary that Catholicism was one by my would-be instructor in All Things Catholic).

But there’s also something else I wouldn’t be interested in. I wouldn’t be interested in finding out why openness to having more than two (maybe three) children is a great good, not just for Catholics but for all married couples. In fact, in my resentment at being shamed, I might snidely wonder if my shamer might be a bit more pleasant to be around if she wasn’t dealing with so many small children.

And that’s the point at which I started thinking about the evangelistic opportunities that blather provides.

In a world in which many people have many misconceptions about the burden that a large family must be, both on individuals and the world at large, curiosity and questions can provide an opportunity to dispel those misconceptions. Let’s re-imagine the scenario of the harried mother in the supermarket, five or more young children in tow, confronted in the checkout line by a curious person. Suppose the conversation went like this:

Blatherer: “Wow, are all of these children yours?”Mother [suppresses sigh and smiles]: “Oh yes, every last one of them.”

B [still curious]: “Were they planned?”

[M has a choice now. She can either say “Yes” or “No,” depending on the point she wants to emphasize. I’ll randomly choose one of her options to demonstrate a possible response.]

M: “Yes, my husband and I have always wanted a large family.”

B: “But you’re stopping now, right?”M: “We ask ourselves that question every month. Say, could you please hand me a copy of People over there?”

What has happened here? M has answered every single question asked, politely and with cheerfulness. When the questions move toward a point at which they could become too personal, she changed the subject and then turned her attention to supervising her children. Her answers challenge prevailing presumptions about the size of the modern family—but without lectures, shaming, or unsolicited proselytism.

And how might B leave the discussion? Since she was treated with courtesy and respect, she’d have no reason to be angry or embarrassed. Perhaps she might think over the conversation at some later time. The next time she finds herself thinking what a burden children can be, perhaps she’ll remember the cheerful mother of many she once met who seemed so content with her family. She might tell someone sneering at large families, “Oh, I don’t know, I’ve met people who seem to be very happy to be raising many children.”

Perhaps she might even think of having more children of her own. Perhaps she might share the story with her husband during one of those discussions and say, “Honey, maybe it really isn’t that difficult after all. If that nice lady could wrangle all of her children with such ease, maybe we could handle one more baby. . . .”

This evangelistic template can be applied to all kinds of blather, not just that blather directed at large families. Here’s a formula for dealing with stupid questions:

Suppress the temptation to lash out. Save your snappy zingers for your La Leche League meeting, or your support group, or (if you must) for entertaining your Friends on Facebook. However much better those one-liners make you feel, they will not help anyone else. All they will do is to confirm for your inquirer that whatever you are going through really must be the burden they believe it to be after all.

Give the obvious answer. Trying to startle with a witty reply likely will have the exact opposite effect that you want. People hate, hate, hate to let anyone else have the Last Word. If they can possibly respond to you, they will, and in a way that puts you down in return. It will ramp up the tension and can lead to heated argument—or worse. The obvious answer, given matter-of-factly and without embarrassment, tends to defuse a loaded question (and may itself have the potential to startle).

Choose one presumption to challenge. You cannot hope to have an hour to answer your inquirer in-depth. You must answer simply, usually with a “Yes” or “No.” But you can probably add a sentence that throws a switch in the line and sends a train steaming toward one conclusion in another direction. For example, when someone asks me, “Are you a Christian?” I always answer, “Yes, I’m a Catholic.” Many people who ask that question seem to think that the word Christian is synonymous with Evangelical Protestant. My answer both affirms that I am a Christian and that I believe Catholics are Christians.

Redirect. Yes, sometimes the blather becomes too personal. If a stranger in a checkout line starts to offer medical advice, or is close to asking about what you and your spouse do in your bedroom, or in any other way oversteps bounds beyond a tolerable degree, then you can end an uncomfortable conversation. Just change the subject, or turn your attention to someone else. If you can give your inquirer something to do—such as handing you a copy of a magazine that is out of your reach—that is all the better. Not only will you have a prop in hand with which to distract yourself if need be, but your inquirer may forget what he asked you about.

Beware of your own presumptions . . .

Finally, be humble. I may not be a mom, but as mentioned earlier, I have to deal with my own fair share of questions I dislike. Let me close with a story of dealing with the question, “What is apologetics?”

One day I was at the supermarket. Among the purchases on the belt to be rung up by the cashier was a book I was planning to buy. The cashier, a friendly teenager of about 16, struck up a conversation as she worked. She glanced at the book, which was a novel, and asked if I liked non-fiction.

“Yes,” I replied. “Oh, what kind of non-fiction do you like to read?” she responded.

Not interested in explaining at that moment exactly what apologetics is (yet again), I decided to get around that word by listing topics that could fall under the heading of apologetics. “Religion, philosophy, history.” Then, to redirect the conversation away from me, I asked, “How about you?”

“Oh, I like to read a lot of Christian apologetics.”

Filed under: Apologetics]]>http://michellearnold.org/2014/07/07/how-to-answer-stupid-questions/feed/6peacejoypancakesCheckoutBinding Up Burdenshttp://michellearnold.org/2014/07/02/binding-up-burdens/
http://michellearnold.org/2014/07/02/binding-up-burdens/#commentsThu, 03 Jul 2014 06:39:08 +0000http://michellearnold.org/?p=172Continue reading →]]>If you have just returned from a vacation to Mars, you may not have heard that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) recently ruled that the Christian craft store Hobby Lobby qualifies for an exemption from the contraception coverage rule in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on the basis of religious freedom. The upshot of the decision is that “closely held corporations” cannot be forced to provide contraception coverage to employees if offering such coverage violates the consciences of the corporation’s owners.

Well, cyberspace exploded with reaction, both from social conservatives whooping it up that SCOTUS had protected the conscience rights of Christians, and from social liberals who seemed to fall into near despair. Personally, I found reactions on both sides to be entirely disproportionate to the news. I sympathized with the glee of the conservatives, although I found some of the remarks tasteless—and was annoyed to see some of the tasteless remarks instantly made over into tasteless memes, so that an insta-remark that might have later been regretted, quickly fallen into obscurity, and been forgotten will now live on forever on Facebook. But the reaction of some social liberals managed to top the conservatives for crudity. Jessica Valenti, feminist writer and a board member for NARAL ProChoice America, posted to Twitter (caveat: not safe for work):

Maybe women should organize a safe-sex f***-in at every Hobby Lobby across the country. In the glitter aisle. JUST A THOUGHT.

Do you think that Jessica Valenti is actually going to organize such a venture? Will she risk her comfortable position as a writer and activist to sit in jail for public indecency? Will she assume the legal fees, fines, and other burdens of anyone who is inspired by her “thought” and is punished for the crime? Will she face any consequences at all for publicly suggesting such action? Or will she continue to put fingers to keyboard to type out whatever crudity passes through her mind?

To ask the questions is to answer them. Of course not, on all counts. What she is doing is what I like to call “binding up burdens”—suggesting that others take on an impossible burden simply because the one who proposes it thinks it is an easy solution to a difficult dilemma. Taking on the burden is made a test of tribal loyalty. Or, as Jesus described the phenomenon:

They [the scribes and Pharisees] bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger (Matt. 23:4).

I offer this secular example of binding up burdens to demonstrate that it is not just something that religious conservatives do. It is something that anyone devoted to a cause can do when rallying the troops, and when more importance is placed on devotion to the cause than on the human frailty of those treated as pack mules for a movement.

In my opinion though, the culpability for such behavior is greater when binding up burdens is committed by religious conservatives. Those who claim to be the closest followers of a religious tradition have the most responsibility to avoid creating impossible burdens for their fellow travelers to carry. I happen to think that those who most loudly proclaim their fealty should willingly take up the heaviest burdens on behalf of the weak—and not the other way around.

So, let’s look at a religious example of binding up burdens.

Much has been made of what pastoral solutions may emerge from the upcoming Synod on the Family. In particular, some have suggested that the Church could offer the sacraments of confession and the Eucharist to those Catholics who are civilly remarried after a divorce but have not obtained an annulment of a prior marriage. This proposal has caused much consternation among the faithful, clergy and laity alike. It is not my purpose here to critique this proposal, but to critique one response to the controversy.

One of the counter-suggestions, given in Instrumentum Laboris, a preparatory document for the Synod, is that the faithful be instructed that they are not required to receive Communion every time they go to Mass, and that there is no shame in remaining in the pew while others receive:

A more painful wound results when these people remarry and enter a state of life which does not allow them to receive holy Communion. Clearly, in these cases, the Church must not assume an attitude of a judge who condemns . . . but that of a mother who always receives her children and nurses their wounds so they may heal. . . . With great mercy, the Church is called to find forms of “accompaniment” which can support her children on the path of reconciliation. With patience and understanding, she must explain to these people that their not being able to celebrate the sacraments does not mean that they are excluded from the Christian life and a relationship with God (IL 103).

For the religious conservative anyway, problem solved, eh? The practice of the Church remains unchanged. Evidently though, even this bit of consolation offered the divorced and civilly-remarried is unacceptable to some people. One blogger, himself “a married father of six,” offered this quote from Instrumentum Laboris (actually he quoted a blog that quoted the document) and then commented:

Contrast this with the words of Our Lord: “Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.”

In response to another suggestion in the document that prayers be offered for people “in difficult situations” during the Prayer of the Faithful (IL 104), the blogger stated:

Oh, man, containing my sarcasm here is just too hard. But I will restrain myself. Unless I am missing something, this document contains not a word about calling the divorced and invalidly remarried to a life of virtue; nothing about leaving their sinful lifestyle in order to return to the sacraments; nothing about the necessity of taking up their cross and following Christ. Kyrie eleison!

To revisit the questions I asked earlier: Do you think that this “married father of six” will have to take up the cross of remaining in the pew during Communion for an indeterminate length of time—months, possibly years? Will he have to suffer the burden of having to choose between his family and admission to the sacramental life of the Church? Is he going to offer to take up the costs for a Catholic who desperately wants to resolve an irregular marital situation but cannot afford either an annulment of a previous marriage or a civil divorce of a current marriage? Or will he continue to put fingers to keyboard to type out whatever Scripture verse pops into his head as a “debate closer”?

Perhaps he might respond that being in a sacramental marriage does not disqualify him from offering thoughts on what the Church should do about those Catholics in irregular marriages. And, strictly speaking, that’s correct. Simply because someone does not have personal experience does not mean he cannot participate in the discussion. When an abolitionist challenged Susan B. Anthony’s right to express her opinion about marriage given that she never married, Anthony responded that the abolitionist thus could express no opinion on slavery given that he had never been a slave (recounted in Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments by Randy Alcorn).

But, while it may be true that the right to express an opinion on a subject in which one has no personal experience cannot be automatically denied, we can say that an inexperienced person might be expected to express that opinion far more humbly than has this blogger. Perhaps the opinion might be couched in softer language (e.g., avoiding absolutes), with note made of one’s own lack of personal experience. Perhaps fundamentalist-style Scripture verse-slinging could be eschewed as presumptuous—as is the case when verses are slung as if no one had ever before heard of the verse in question or thought through its implications. And, finally, perhaps practical suggestions might be offered for easing the burden of the suffering—as was done in the preparatory document—rather than tearing into the suggestions offered by others and offering nothing more than demands for a restatement of principles.

More often than not, our Lord did not become angry with public sinners. In the case of the woman caught in adultery, she was told “Neither do I condemn you” before she was told “do not sin again” (John 8:11). The multiply-married woman at the well was given the courtesy of having the man she lived with called her “husband” until she admitted otherwise (John 4:16–18). If you read both accounts carefully, you will note that neither woman explicitly repents of her sin. Neither promises to change her ways. We do not find out if the woman living with the putative “husband” left him. All we do know is that our Lord offered these women hope at a time in their lives when they could not expect to be offered hope.

By contrast, our Lord did become angry with those who thought themselves good practitioners of their religion. Some of his most indignant words are reserved for those who “preach, but do not practice” (Matt. 23:3), who are self-satisfied that they are not like other men (Luke 18:11), who look with contempt upon the suffering sinners lay at the feet of Christ (Luke 7:36–50). To people like this, he rounds on them and warns:

That servant who knew his master’s will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating. But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more (Luke 12:47–48).

Filed under: Apologetics]]>http://michellearnold.org/2014/07/02/binding-up-burdens/feed/0peacejoypancakesWashingFeetWill Blog For Clickshttp://michellearnold.org/2014/06/30/will-blog-for-clicks/
http://michellearnold.org/2014/06/30/will-blog-for-clicks/#commentsMon, 30 Jun 2014 07:13:15 +0000http://michellearnold.org/?p=151Continue reading →]]>I read an article the other day on why you should not trust Facebook to provide you with all the details of the real lives of your friends and family. Among other surprise revelations, the article noted:

Everyone on Facebook looks like they’re having a great time. Fun adventures, deep romances, amazing jobs. It’s enough to make you feel inadequate, but it’s also a lie. Nobody is really as happy as their Facebook wall claims. . . . So the next time you’re driven to jealousy by a Facebook friend’s humblebragging about his or her awesome life, don’t forget: They’re probably embellishing it for social media, even if it’s unconsciously.

In response, on my own Facebook page, I wrote:

I worry about people whose Facebook pages are completely accurate, unfiltered depictions of their real lives for all the world to see. . . . That’s because I consider what I do here a form of blogging, and my job is to be informative and entertaining.

But I got to thinking about the nature of blogging and how bloggers can manipulate their audiences for gain. Keep in mind that the gain is not always financial—although some bloggers do receive a small bit of regular compensation for their work, and a few of them have managed to turn their blog into a career. Sometimes the gain is attention, high rankings in search engines, or applause from their readers. And so there is a temptation to “spin” stories in a way that presses the readers’ buttons.

As an example, earlier today I found a blog post that told the story of the fire in the UpStairs Lounge in New Orleans in 1973. The UpStairs Lounge was a gay bar. Titled “Remembering the UpStairs Lounge: The USA’s Largest LGBT Massacre Happened 40 Years Ago Today,” the blogger related the horrific story of the arson attack on the bar in gripping, well-crafted prose:

Just before 8:00 [PM], the doorbell rang insistently. To answer it, you had to unlock a steel door that opened onto a flight of stairs leading down to the ground floor. Bartender Buddy Rasmussen, expecting a taxi driver, asked his friend Luther Boggs to let the man in. Perhaps Boggs, after he pulled the door open, had just enough time to smell the Ronsonol lighter fluid that the attacker of the UpStairs Lounge had sprayed on the steps. In the next instant, he found himself in unimaginable pain as the fireball exploded, pushing upward and into the bar.

The ensuing 15 minutes were the most horrific that any of the 65 or so customers had ever endured — full of flames, smoke, panic, breaking glass, and screams.

[Metropolitan Community Church] assistant pastor George “Mitch” Mitchell escaped, but soon returned to try to rescue his boyfriend, Louis Broussard. Both died in the fire, their bodies clinging together in death, like a scene from the aftermath of Pompeii.

I had never heard of this event, and immediately shared it with friends on Facebook, saying:

Perhaps we can call for a pause in the culture war and observe a moment of silence to remember, and to pray the dead.

Then I went back to digging into the story.

Deep down in the text, the blogger notes that there was a suspect to the crime (whom the blogger describes as “an itinerant troublemaker with known mental problems”), but that he was never charged. The suspect acknowledged responsibility on multiple occasions, and later committed suicide. Wanting to know more, I looked up the case on Wikipedia. And that is where I found this information:

The official investigation failed to yield any convictions. The only suspect arrested for the attack was Rodger Dale Nunez, a local hustler and troublemaker who had been ejected from the bar earlier in the evening after fighting with another customer. Nunez had been diagnosed with “conversion hysteria” in 1970 and had visited numerous psychiatric clinics. After his arrest, Nunez escaped from psychiatric custody and was never picked up again by police, despite frequent appearances in the French Quarter. A friend later told investigators that Nunez confessed on at least four occasions to starting the fire (emphasis added).

The initial blog post shaded this incident in such a way that readers were left with the impression that the attack was a homophobic pogrom carried out with malice against LGBT people martyred for their sexual orientation. The reality was that the fire may well have been started by a mentally-ill patron of the bar as revenge for being ejected from the premises earlier that day. And, in fact, he may not even have intended anything more than malicious mischief and vandalism since the Wikipedia article notes that “[Nunez] did not realize, he claimed, that the whole place would go up in flames.”

Of course, there is plenty in the story of the UpStairs Lounge to mourn over and to be enraged about. The case has never been solved, and the reaction to the event at the time ranged from apathetic (the Archdiocese of New Orleans did not issue a statement of mourning at the loss of life until 2013) to homophobic (talk-radio hosts made disgusting jokes about the tragedy the day after the fire).

But what cannot be denied is that a terrible story in its own right had been shaded by the blogger in a way that manipulated public opinion. The result? In the year since it was originally published, that blog post has drawn over 900 comments and is currently ranked at number one out of three million results for anyone who types “UpStairs Lounge” into the Google search engine.

Lest you think only those bloggers seeking to draw attention to LGBT rights will misuse rhetoric to manipulate readers, let’s look at another example I came across recently. This one is from the Facebook page of a Catholic priest who is prominent in the pro-life movement. He, or possibly a staff member given responsibility for maintaining his Facebook page, posted this quote without explanation or context:

“In her book Pagan Meditations, Ginette Paris describes ‪#‎abortion‬ as an essentially religious act, a sacred sacrifice to Artemis. ‘One aborts an impossible ‪#‎love‬,’ she writes, ‘not a hatred.’ In her new book, The Sacrament of Abortion, Paris explains further that if we saw abortion as a sacred ritual, it would restore to the act a sense of the sanctity of ‪#‎life” —Brenda Peterson, October 1993 issue of New Age Journal, “Sister Against Sister,” p.66.

(Nota bene: The hashtags are code that uploads the status update into social media feeds dedicated to those topics. It is a means of drawing in readers to the status update.)

I commented on Facebook that this is “the only time you’ll see a Catholic priest take seriously the writings of a neo-pagan. This is the kind of rhetoric that tempts me to despair for the future of the pro-life movement as an agent for social change.”

When a friend asked me to elaborate I said, “[The priest is] making the point—one often made by [a once-prominent fellow culture-warrior priest]—that abortion is ‘the sacrament of the devil.’ It’s the kind of tactic that appeals to the converted and convinces everyone else that pro-lifers are nuts.”

That friend asked if we should proclaim uncomfortable truths, even when the world thinks we’re nuts. I responded:

Sure we should. But we have not yet established that abortion is a “sacrament of the devil.” What it is at this point is inflammatory rhetoric aimed at demonizing the opposition. Look, I’ve been pro-life since the day I understood what abortion is. That doesn’t mean that all is fair, even from a rhetorical standpoint, in the war to end legalized abortion.

In my opinion, if we have a social media platform, and especially if we have one that has built up an audience, we have a responsibility to avoid sensationalism. We have a responsibility to present the story we want to comment on with fairness and accuracy, and to avoid overstating our case.

Sensationalism brings in readers, no doubt. But accuracy, even when the truth does not make us look good, keeps readers and earns the respect of those readers who disagree with our position.

It must be said that many bloggers do seek to serve the truth and do not consciously seek out sensationalism for the sake of building an audience or manipulating truth to serve agendas. But regardless of intentions, sensationalism and manipulation happen. Here are some tips for avoiding temptation to enlarge upon the truth in a way that is favorable to our cause:

Read source material carefully. There are bloggers who seem to notice an alarming headline on the Internet and repost it to their own page three seconds later. You must take the time to painstakingly read and fully understand before you create your own post on the subject.

Do not use fellow bloggers as news sources. Merely linking to or repackaging a fellow blogger’s summary of a situation is fraught with danger (as I learned in the case of the UpStairs Lounge tragedy). Your fellow blogger may be a conscientious person, but he may not have the same scruples you should develop for presenting a reliable account of an event. Instead, go to the blogger’s sources and read through the material he used to create his account. If he cites sources that are difficult to find on the Internet, do your own digging on the story. In the UpStairs Lounge case, I simply turned to Wikipedia.

Be willing to call your own to account. For example, if a fellow pro-lifer is doing damage to the cause for life by engaging in unfair or wrongheaded tactics, say so. Admitting when your “side” is wrong disarms your opposition. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told by pro-choice friends, “Thank you for saying so!” when I have questioned certain tactics of fellow pro-lifers. If pro-choicers see pro-lifers questioning their own, perhaps pro-choicers too will be inspired to question the tactics engaged in by their own.

Admit when you are wrong. It is all too easy to delete a post in which you have erred. And sometimes deleting is helpful if the post is needlessly inflammatory. But if the error only makes you look foolish, rather than delete the post you could add an update admitting your mistake. Very few people these days ever seem to admit when they have done wrong. But those who do say, “You are right, I was wrong,” earn nearly universal respect and good will. If nothing else, it tends to end arguments, because who is going to argue with being told he is right?

Seek truth, not right. Anyone can be right sometimes. It takes no special skill to be right, and those who care only about being right usually turn off everyone else. But seeking truth is a cooperative effort, something Benedict XVI pointed to in his personal motto, Coopertores veritatis (“Fellow workers in the truth,” cf. 3 John 1:8). When we seek truth, we naturally draw others with us on the journey. And isn’t that what apologists should be called to do?

Blogging can be a lot of fun, and there is certainly nothing wrong with wanting notice for the hard work put into maintaining a blog and creating content for readers. But notice always has to be kept in perspective and cannot be pursued for its own sake. The primary end should be to contribute to understanding. In a blog post I wrote for the Catholic Answers Blog on effective rebuttals in argumentation, I closed the post this way:

Stephen R. Covey, the late educator and motivational guru who wrote The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, once observed that “Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.” The same holds true in all other forms of human communication. . . . Many people do not read . . . with the intent to understand; they read . . . with the intent to reply. But you cannot effectively reply until you first understand.

Filed under: Apologetics]]>http://michellearnold.org/2014/06/30/will-blog-for-clicks/feed/6peacejoypancakesShakespeareBlogTiny Bubbleshttp://michellearnold.org/2014/06/28/tiny-bubbles-2/
http://michellearnold.org/2014/06/28/tiny-bubbles-2/#commentsSun, 29 Jun 2014 01:42:58 +0000http://michellearnold.org/?p=143Continue reading →]]>Introduction: A few months after this essay was published, a writer for Catholic Lane opined on why she was giving up Facebook for Lent. The fourth of her five reasons was “groupthink”: “We Catholics have fostered an electronic environment that demands absolute conformity. We all parrot the same ideas, the same news, the same opinions . . . and frankly I don’t think it’s a particularly creative environment.”

This was news to me, since I have found Facebook vastly stimulating for thinking outside the box, and for discussing ideas from multiple points of view. But one reason for that is that I am friends on Facebook with people of a variety of different backgrounds—Protestant, Jewish, atheist, conservative, liberal, apolitical. It started because I wanted to follow the Facebook updates of writers whose work I enjoy.

If you find yourself uncomfortable with the “groupthink” on your social media platform, there is a solution. . . .

Facebook is an intriguing social phenomenon for many reasons. One that has long fascinated me is Facebook Likes. For those of you who have resisted being sucked into Facebook, Likes are links to public pages on Facebook that are established by members based on their personal preferences. These links allow members to see in their personal newsfeed the updates from public pages that they have Liked.

When I have the time to play around on Facebook, I sometimes enjoy skimming through the Likes on other members’ personal pages. The reason it interests me to do so is that you can often get an accurate read on a person based on what he Likes. For example, a home schooling, pro-life Catholic mom of six often will Like home schooling pages, pro-life pages, conservative Catholic pages, and mommy blog pages. On the other hand an atheist professor of chemistry at an Ivy League university, who lives with his same-sex partner and raises cats, will have an entirely different set of Likes but ones that are largely based on his personality profile.

As amusing as scanning Likes of various personality types can be for the armchair sociologist, there is a dark side to this phenomenon. The danger here is that social media allows us to construct our own personal bubbles, through which we filter our experiences with the wider world. These bubbles are filled not just with personally approved interests but with people—yes, those we Friend—who confirm us in our prejudices. If we mistake someone for an ally and discover later that this person is not really a member of our “tribe,” it is all too easy to Unfriend that person. Because who wants to deal with different points of view in our little Facebook fiefdoms?

Taken to the extreme, this kind of attitude can destroy Christian charity, even among practicing Catholics who regularly go to Mass and to confession. Two examples:

Shortly before a recent presidential election, a Catholic speaker with a popular webcast took to cyberspace to rant about Catholic voters. His staff had discovered that an employee of a diocese located in a political “swing state,” who was being sent around to parishes to educate Catholics on principles of voting conscientiously, evidently had a shady background (by the standards of this webcast’s staff). The problem? Among other suspicious Likes on Facebook, the diocesan employee had clicked the Like button for the League of Women Voters. Who knew why this person Liked the League of Women Voters? The fact that she had clicked that Facebook site’s Like button was deemed sufficient for denouncing that person’s ability to teach Catholics about voting principles.

Then the other day I saw a Facebook post by a Catholic writer, prominent in conservative Catholic circles, who publicly declared:

Consider yourself a Marxist of any kind? Then you are my personal enemy. I will not engage you, dialogue with you, try to see the world through your eyes, any more than I would try that with a Social Darwinist or a Holocaust Revisionist. I will try by any means that is not sinful or illegal to DESTROY you. That is where we differ, you see. As a Marxist, your only morality is that of class conflict. You are a Machiavellian to the core. I am a Roman. I am Coriolanus, and I am coming for you.

Set aside the issue of Marxism. I have no interest in defending Marxism or its apologists. What caused my eyes to pop when I saw this post was the completely serious declaration, given without a twitch of satire or humor, by a Catholic who evidently thought it appropriate to set as a personal goal the destruction of another human being. That, and the complete lack of empathy from a Catholic who could not imagine the value of interaction with another human person who held viewpoints he deemed evil. (Whether or not this Catholic is correct in his assessment that the viewpoints he names here are evil is beside the point.) And then that this declaration was presented to the public as if it was completely in line with Catholic doctrine and morality.

Contrast these insular attitudes from modern Catholic speakers and writers with the saints.

The visit is reported in contemporary Crusader sources and in the earliest biographies of Francis, but they give no information about what transpired during the encounter beyond noting that the Sultan received Francis graciously and that Francis preached to the Saracens without effect, returning unharmed to the Crusader camp.

Pious legend asserts that the Sultan told St. Francis that “If all Christians were like you, I would convert.”

Meanwhile, St. Francis’s contemporary, St. Dominic, who founded the Order of Preachers (better known today as the Dominicans), met up with a different enemy of the faith. While traveling through an area held by the heretic Cathars, St. Dominic is believed to have stopped for the night at an inn owned by a Cathar. Did St. Dominic spit in the man’s face and spend the night under a tree rather than take shelter with this heretic? No. He stayed up all night talking to the man, answering the man’s belligerent denunciations of the Catholic faith. By morning it is said that the innkeeper, overcome by grace and by St. Dominic’s witness to the faith, confessed to St. Dominic and was received by Dominic back into communion with the Church.

In both of these stories, which it must be admitted have been gilded by legend over the centuries, the saints stepped outside their bubbles to engage men shaped by vastly different worldviews than their own. St. Dominic’s effort was rewarded with the grace of conversion; St. Francis’s effort was rewarded with the grace of newfound respect for the possibilities of what it means to be Christian.

One of the blessings of social media is that it has given us the ability to meet people through cyberspace whom we might never have the opportunity to meet in real life. It has given us the ability to be exposed to other viewpoints and worldviews. We are not necessarily obligated to respect those viewpoints or worldviews. The obligation is to respect the human dignity of every person and to respect every person’s freedom of conscience. There is no need to respect beliefs that violate logic or human decency. For example, someone who believes that the earth is flat deserves to be treated with kindness and personal dignity but he does not deserve to have his belief in a flat earth respected or affirmed. In like manner, someone who believes in worshipping Satan continues to have inalienable human dignity but should not expect Christians to respect or affirm beliefs that directly contradict the Christian gospel.

One must be careful though not to dismiss others’ beliefs lightly and without due consideration. Just because someone is a non-Christian does not mean he may not have valuable insights derived from beliefs that contain some truth. The challenge is to know your own faith well enough to be able to sift out what is incomplete or erroneous and to find the nuggets of wisdom buried within the beliefs others hold. The Second Vatican Council, in the document Nostra Aetate, taught:

[O]ther religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing “ways,” comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to himself.

The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve, and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men (NA 2).

So, take a chance. If you use social media then I encourage you to step outside any artificial bubble you may have constructed. Like a page or two or more that reflects a viewpoint you don’t share. Send a friend request or subscribe to the personal page of someone with whom you disagree on some issues. In my own case, over time I have developed real-life friendships with a couple of people who I otherwise would never have known. We disagree on some issues, but the connection that began through Facebook matters a great deal to me—and I like to think that it matters to them as well.

What is the alternative? Well, you could stay in your bubble. But life in a bubble is sterile and lonely. It cuts you off from the real world. And, ultimately, life in a bubble can be deadly.

Note: A version of this essay originally appeared on the Catholic Answers Blog (11/4/13). It is republished here with permission.